A
major concern of Christian teachers is the integration of faith and learning,
and the relationship between academic disciplines and Christian faith and
behavior. One of our goals as teachers is to define and articulate an integrated
relationship in the classroom. Unfortunately, with respect to the natural
sciences, a well-balanced, mutually supportive relationship is often obscured by
overly zealous Christians who feel that integration of faith and learning means
either using aspects of science to support biblical truth, or defending the
integrity of Scripture against perceived scientific attacks. In both cases there
is a lack of scientific understanding.

One of the primary assumptions in modern
science is "tentativeness." Scientists know very much about the
natural world, but, nonetheless, in science there is rarely indisputable proof
of hypotheses and certainly no absolute truth. All facts, hypotheses and
theories are subject to changes in the light of further discovery, evidence and
insight. When a Christian then uses a discovery or tenet of science to support a
biblical truth, which he undoubtedly holds as absolute, he is using evidence
which by nature is tentative. What happens at a later time when scientists alter
or overthrow that tenet? The argument for biblical truth is damaged, for one is
led to conclude that the biblical truth is just as tentative as the scientific
truth that was used to support it.

The assumption of scientific tentativeness
should also be remembered when one perceives a scientific threat to Scripture.
For over I 00 years now, the best example of such a threat has been the General
Theory of Organic Evolution. Christians need to remember that despite claims
that sound like absolute truth, evolution is a theory, albeit an important one.
It is one that has changed significantly since Darwin's first conception of it,
and remains a theory subject to revision. There are, of course, people who try
to use scientific theories against biblical truth. They do this with some
success, but oftentimes Christians play into their hands by allowing themselves
to be provoked with phantom issues.

The relationship between Christian faith and
science has little to do with arguments between the two, or with the using of
one to support the other. In the past, the relationship was on . e of
presuppositions which predisposed a Christian oriented society to pursue
scientific knowledge. These presuppositions included the belief in an orderly
physical world, and the reality of cause and effect. Today it is hard for us to
see that relationship because science has become known for its highly prized
technological applications. Nations that have had little Christian influence
pursue science zealously because they associate science with technological
advancement. Yet for Christians, faith should still be a motivation to pursue
basic scientific knowledge. By this we demonstrate our belief that God has
wrought a good creation; and as our knowledge of the natural world increases, so
does our awe of the Creator.

Presuppositions of Science
and the BiblicalWorld
View

In 1961, the late Georgetown historian Carrol
Quigley published a fascinating, perspicacious study of civilizations, The
Evolution of Civilizations. He noted that although regions within any
civilization often vary considerably, no region can be adequately described
without reference to ideological elements that are common to the civilization as
a whole. In Western civilization, for example, whether one is describing Greece
or the USA, Poland or Australia, the description will be incomplete without
terms such as JudeoChristian, scientific, industrial, and capitalistic. Quigley
gives these and nine other terms as examples, but the first two are the
pertinent ones for this essay. Western civilization is both Judeo-Christian and
scientific. Quigley, who was not an evangelical Christian, rejected the notion
that this concurrence was a mere fortuitous circumstance. He considered all
ideological elements of a civilization to be interrelated.

The particulars of the relationship between
Judeo-Christianity and science is the scholarly forte' of R. Hooykaas, an
Utrecht professor of the history of science. He points out that while science
has flourished from time to time in other civilizations, the expansive and
technologically fruitful discipline of modern science arose only in the West.
Even the Islamic civilization, which shares with the West classical

Greek roots and whose science and development
during the Middle Ages far exceeded that of the West, failed to develop a modern
science. In the history of science one finds that the Hebrews made few lasting
material contributions to science, but their Bible has endured and influenced
the way in which Westerners perceive the world. That influence is a salient
distinctive of the West, and modern science is in part the product of it.

Just how is it that Westerners "see"
the world, and in what manner is that vision biblical? After all, not that many
Westerners consciously think of their cognitive processes as being biblically
influenced. Nevertheless, the Bible has influenced Western thinking in many
ways. The influences pertinent to science have to do with the reality and nature
of the physical world, the nature and role of mankind, and the value of secular
work. Since science is the study of the physical world it is easy to see that
only those who are convinced of a "real" physical world will bother to
pursue the study of it. Futhermore, one must be convinced that the real physical
world is orderly and therefore understandable. Then one must be convinced that
humans are capable of such understanding, and that it is proper and profitable
to make the attempt. Finally, the efforts (particularly "hands-on"
experimenting) made in such attempts must be esteemed in the society.

In the study of civilizations one can find a
correlation between the lack of the above presuppositions and the stultification
of science. Classical Greece is a case in point. Although known as the
birthplace of science, it also could have been the deathplace save for Muslim
and early Western scholars. One of the main reasons that Greek science did not
continue to flourish was the pervasive notion that the world of ideas, concepts
and philosophy was more real and certainly more important than the physical
world. Thus, the Greeks denied themselves the essential experimental methods of
science that must be coupled with theory and philosophy.

In contrast to Greek philosophy, the Bible
clearly teaches that there is a real physical world. "In the beginning God
created. . . " the world, and not only that, but God pronounced His
creation good. Then He commissioned mankind to subdue and reign over creation
(see Genesis 1). Here in these few words one finds the foundation of a world
view that holds to a real physical, understandable world and sanctions the
investigation of that world. Furthermore, the Bible is eminently historical.
Abraham was called out of Ur. Moses led the Hebrews. Jesus the Nazarene was
crucified at Golgotha. These historical events are physical events, and
demonstrate to those influenced by the Bible the importance of the physical
world. Futhermore, work is held in honor; all work, not just religious work. The
best indication of this is that Adam was expected to till the soil even in the
garden of Eden. If in Eden, that paradise, there was work to be done, then work
must be a part of that which is good and worthy of esteem.

There is much more that could be said on this
topic, but in a nutshell these are the biblical influences on Western thinking
that were and are so conducive to science. As Hooykaas has said metaphorically,
"whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its
vitamins and hormones were Biblical." These vitamins and hormones are the
biblically assured, understandable world, and the sanctification of work and
inquiry.

Faith, Learning, and
Responsible Action

A second aspect of the integration of faith and
science learning ought to be the biblically motivated and directed
responsibility to influence the development and deployment of applied scientific
knowledge. One could argue that this responsibility is obligatory because of the
positive relationship between biblically influenced thinking and the rise of
modern science. More important, this responsibility is obligatory by virtue of
the stewardship commands of the Gospel.

Although there are many things to which the Bible
does not speak directly, Christians nonetheless find biblical principles for
guidance in all areas of life. The control of the ap ication of scientific
knowledge is no exception. I would like to draw two principles from three verses
of Scripture and apply them to two areas which are most perplexing. The verses
are:

And God saw every thing that He had made, and,
behold it was very good. (Genesis 1:31a)

For God so loved the world, that He gave His
only begotten Son ... (John 3:16a)

Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even to them ... (Matthew 7:12a)

One sees in these verses that the earth is
God's own creation, the Fall notwithstanding, and that the creation is good. It
is seen that God has immense love for a special part of His creation, people,
and that it is the law of God that people do good to each other. The principles
are:

1. Because God created the earth and
called it good, it is ungodly to commit wanton violence against that
creation.

2. People, that special creation of God
and loved by God, should not suffer violence, and moreover should be
respected as God's loved ones.

Due to the Fall, we see in Scripture violence
used to restrain evil, and thus have arisen concepts such as "The Just
War." The justifiability of such violence does not however negate the above
biblical principles of nonviolence and of doing good, in fact the Just War
theory incorporates those principles. Those principles are a restraint that
cause Christians to ask: Is this violence to God's creation and His loved ones
necessary? And this is a question that must be asked today, unless Christians
wish to abdicate their responsibility to help resolve today's foremost problem
in the application of scientific knowledge; that is, the development of modern
weapons, the use of which would destroy the world.

The development of weapons of mass destruction
is the result of a foreign policy which the USA and the USSR have followed for
thirty years; Mutually Assured Destruction, otherwise known as MAD.
Christians-and remember that Christians make up a significant segment of the
voting public, and thus share responsibility for the actions of elected
officials-must ask if this is a biblically defensible position. It appears that
the policy has been effective in preventing a major war these past thirty years,
but does a desired result justify a willingness to commit an action that is
unbiblical? Remember that MAD has only been effective because each side has
believed that the other side was willing to commit mass destruction, that each
side was willing to literally destroy the earth in order to thwart the other
side. Can any Christian seriously believe that God would for any reason condone
this utter annihilation of His creation? This not only ignores God's principles
of nonviolence and of doing good, but raises other conflicts with Scripture. If
a Christian supports the development and use of weapons for the policy of
Mutually Assured Destruction, is not his willingness to commit mass destruction
in conflict with God's scripturally stated intention that Christ should return
to an intact world? If ever there was an area which required the integration of
Christian faith and scientific learning it is here in the development and use of
modern weapons.

A second area where the application of
scientific knowledge must be dealt with carefully is in the development and
subsequent use of industrial technology. Especially in the West, people enjoy a
comfortable standard of living largely due to industrialization, but there are
also the perplexing difficulties of actual and potential pollution. Take, for
example, the actual pollution of acid rain and the potential pollution of a
chemical spill the magnitude of the recent spill in Bhopal, India.

On the surface, it would seem that this should
be no problem, after all it is a silly bird that fouls its own nest. Yet one can
find many existing cases of pollution and potential threats of pollution that
people accept simply because the alternatives are deemed too expensive. Consider
two examples. The technology for significantly reducing pollution caused by
automobile emissions has been available for some time now, but attempts to
mandate the use of that technology have been stoutly resisted. Unfortunately
"dirty cars" are cheaper than "clean cars." Sometimes the
use of a dangerous technology is desirable, but paying for the safe use of that
technology is not. The chemical industry is a case in point. The public wants
the products but they want them at a price that discourages a manufacturer from
employing the safety practices that he should. It is hard to imagine a Christian
saying to God that he polluted God's good creation and harmed God's loved ones
because it was too costly to do otherwise, but in the final call to judgment
that is what, is going to happen.

The integration of faith and scientific
learning requires first that Christians hold to true godliness, which mandates
that one love, respect and preserve that which God loves and has called good.
Second, all Christians need to be informed of what is happening on God's earth.
It has been noted that for all too many Christians, world affairs stopped at 33
A.D., with the exception of the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
Finally, the integration of faith and learning requires that Christians give
voice to their consciences and act responsibly to influence the use of knowledge
for the well-being of humanity. Today, scientific knowledge ishighly
advanced and has already been used for many marvelous and God-honoring purposes.
Yet that same knowledge holds the potential for creation-altering, evil effects
which no Christian can ignore with impunity.